One day someone will do this to the truck

[TheQuixotic1]

if 10% of vehicles were electric it would crash our electrical grid due to it being under capacity and outdated.

I like to bring receipts from time to time. Pull up a seat while I spin a yarn for ya'll...

While there is a kernel of truth to that statement (under capacity and outdated), it is a sentiment that has been used for decades about any/all household items that are hungry for electricity.

Most notable was in popularization/propagation of air conditioning starting in the 60's (when central air became "standard" in new home builds). In 1960 the US generated 0.76 trillion kWh of electricity per year and there was no way every home could possibly have their own a/c unit without it devastating the electrical grid.

In 2000, the US generated over 3.8 trillion kWh, an increase of 500% in energy production over 40 years. In 2021, US production was 4.11 trillion kWh; another 10% increase in production even though most consumer demands became wildly more energy efficient. For someone (Thanos, perhaps?) to snap their fingers and make all vehicles EV, the US would need roughly 1 trillion kWh additional generated each year for all of them to regularly charge, meaning production would need to increase roughly 25%.

We don't have an EV vs ICE problem, we have a problem with people saying things can't ever change because of how they are right now. Regardless of EVs, our electrical grid is outdated and prone to failure due to lack of proper investment and upkeep. But the "good news" is that the problem isn't a problem if people in power ever actually wanted to solve it. Yes it is a problem that requires funding, but it requires significantly less funding than what the US government has spent on defense since 9/11 ($14 trillion: half of which going to private contractors and over 60% of which the Pentagon admits they can't account for).

Here is a video that decently explains the grid issue in relation to EVs. For the previous paragraph I can't offer a succinct video, only a bottle of whiskey to try and numb the idiocy.

Technology has improved dang near every facet of everyday life, and technology is exponentially more efficient than it was at any point 20-60 years ago. Even if we only matched the 1960-2000 pace of energy production expansion (approximately a 4% increase every year), we would be able to accomplish an "all EV" switchover in roughly 6 years. And that's if every vehicle switched in that timeframe.

There are still plenty of houses out there without air conditioning/central air. No one made everyone give up their horses 10 years after the Model T came along. No one made you sell your Sony Walkman from 1985 in a garage sale once the Sony Discman caught on. No one made us order something on Amazon instead of going to the mall to get it. Most people switched over because the thing they switched over to was better.

(*pauses and looks at wife's Chevy Bolt EUV charging in the garage*)

To the victor goes the spoils.



... This might be my most favorite post that I've ever gotten to write on here.

Sponsored

 

[TheQuixotic1]

We need to adopt hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. They're clearly the best option long term imo. I used to be an EV lover. My concern isn't the range, or the cost, or even the charging infastrure. It's the fact that producing ev batteries is very bad for the environment, furthermore, as the name suggests, rare earth materials are well rare. We're struggling to meet current lithium and cobalt demands as is. I don't see how we could possibly provide enough of these materials to meet demand in a future where virtually all cars are electric. It just doesn't seem possible. Once natural reserves of these resources are depleted, it'll be a race to recycle materials fast enough to build new batteries. Then there's the issue with recycling of batteries itself and the headache that brings to the table.

EV batteries are going to go through a lot of technological breakthroughs over the coming decades. To think we will still be using the same batteries we are currently using ignores the fact that we haven't been using the same kind of batteries for quite some time. Lithium-ion batteries as we know them in EVs are only a decade old. While the current supply chain for battery materials is EXTREMELY problematic, it is an addressable issue and the materials we will need 7 years from now might not be the same materials we need right now. Battery technology seems to be making breakthroughs and improvements at a remarkable pace, and companies from Sony to Ford have been pouring billions into R&D on making the best battery. Solid state batteries are almost to market now and will be a game-changer. Iron-air battery technology just had a significant breakthrough that might make us completely rethink home energy storage. The future is too full of promise to write batteries off for issues they have now. There's a lot of noise, but the signal is strong.

 

[raymaines]

While there is a kernel of truth to that statement (under capacity and outdated), it is a sentiment that has been used for decades about any/all household items that are hungry for electricity.

We don't have an EV vs ICE problem, we have a problem with people saying things can't ever change because of how they are right now.

... No one made everyone give up their horses 10 years after the Model T came along. No one made you sell your Sony Walkman from 1985 in a garage sale once the Sony Discman caught on. No one made us order something on Amazon instead of going to the mall to get it. Most people switched over because the thing they switched over to was .

... This might be my most favorite post that I've ever gotten to write on here.

And it's probably my most favorite post that I've ever gotten to read on here.

And BTW, the V-8 in the OP would have to go in sideways and I kind of don't think that would work out real well.

 

[dags1207]

Let's put the 3.5L PowerBoost and still call it a hybrid lol

 

[BuddyS]

I like to bring receipts from time to time. Pull up a seat while I spin a yarn for ya'll...

While there is a kernel of truth to that statement (under capacity and outdated), it is a sentiment that has been used for decades about any/all household items that are hungry for electricity.

Most notable was in popularization/propagation of air conditioning starting in the 60's (when central air became "standard" in new home builds). In 1960 the US generated 0.76 trillion kWh of electricity per year and there was no way every home could possibly have their own a/c unit without it devastating the electrical grid.

In 2000, the US generated over 3.8 trillion kWh, an increase of 500% in energy production over 40 years. In 2021, US production was 4.11 trillion kWh; another 10% increase in production even though most consumer demands became wildly more energy efficient. For someone (Thanos, perhaps?) to snap their fingers and make all vehicles EV, the US would need roughly 1 trillion kWh additional generated each year for all of them to regularly charge, meaning production would need to increase roughly 25%.

We don't have an EV vs ICE problem, we have a problem with people saying things can't ever change because of how they are right now. Regardless of EVs, our electrical grid is outdated and prone to failure due to lack of proper investment and upkeep. But the "good news" is that the problem isn't a problem if people in power ever actually wanted to solve it. Yes it is a problem that requires funding, but it requires significantly less funding than what the US government has spent on defense since 9/11 ($14 trillion: half of which going to private contractors and over 60% of which the Pentagon admits they can't account for).

Here is a video that decently explains the grid issue in relation to EVs. For the previous paragraph I can't offer a succinct video, only a bottle of whiskey to try and numb the idiocy.

Technology has improved dang near every facet of everyday life, and technology is exponentially more efficient than it was at any point 20-60 years ago. Even if we only matched the 1960-2000 pace of energy production expansion (approximately a 4% increase every year), we would be able to accomplish an "all EV" switchover in roughly 6 years. And that's if every vehicle switched in that timeframe.

There are still plenty of houses out there without air conditioning/central air. No one made everyone give up their horses 10 years after the Model T came along. No one made you sell your Sony Walkman from 1985 in a garage sale once the Sony Discman caught on. No one made us order something on Amazon instead of going to the mall to get it. Most people switched over because the thing they switched over to was better.

(*pauses and looks at wife's Chevy Bolt EUV charging in the garage*)

To the victor goes the spoils.



... This might be my most favorite post that I've ever gotten to write on here.

I can't like this post enough. Spot on, my friend.

 

[dalola]

I love everything about this! If it's yours, well done!!

 

[RobCannaday]

They already have happened? 10% of new car sales last year were EVs. you realize an infrastructure bill was passed last year as well? These things don’t magically pop up. They take time and investment.

tell that to california who cant even power what they have

 

[Timothyd]

I like to bring receipts from time to time. Pull up a seat while I spin a yarn for ya'll...

While there is a kernel of truth to that statement (under capacity and outdated), it is a sentiment that has been used for decades about any/all household items that are hungry for electricity.

Most notable was in popularization/propagation of air conditioning starting in the 60's (when central air became "standard" in new home builds). In 1960 the US generated 0.76 trillion kWh of electricity per year and there was no way every home could possibly have their own a/c unit without it devastating the electrical grid.

In 2000, the US generated over 3.8 trillion kWh, an increase of 500% in energy production over 40 years. In 2021, US production was 4.11 trillion kWh; another 10% increase in production even though most consumer demands became wildly more energy efficient. For someone (Thanos, perhaps?) to snap their fingers and make all vehicles EV, the US would need roughly 1 trillion kWh additional generated each year for all of them to regularly charge, meaning production would need to increase roughly 25%.

We don't have an EV vs ICE problem, we have a problem with people saying things can't ever change because of how they are right now. Regardless of EVs, our electrical grid is outdated and prone to failure due to lack of proper investment and upkeep. But the "good news" is that the problem isn't a problem if people in power ever actually wanted to solve it. Yes it is a problem that requires funding, but it requires significantly less funding than what the US government has spent on defense since 9/11 ($14 trillion: half of which going to private contractors and over 60% of which the Pentagon admits they can't account for).

Here is a video that decently explains the grid issue in relation to EVs. For the previous paragraph I can't offer a succinct video, only a bottle of whiskey to try and numb the idiocy.

Technology has improved dang near every facet of everyday life, and technology is exponentially more efficient than it was at any point 20-60 years ago. Even if we only matched the 1960-2000 pace of energy production expansion (approximately a 4% increase every year), we would be able to accomplish an "all EV" switchover in roughly 6 years. And that's if every vehicle switched in that timeframe.

There are still plenty of houses out there without air conditioning/central air. No one made everyone give up their horses 10 years after the Model T came along. No one made you sell your Sony Walkman from 1985 in a garage sale once the Sony Discman caught on. No one made us order something on Amazon instead of going to the mall to get it. Most people switched over because the thing they switched over to was better.

(*pauses and looks at wife's Chevy Bolt EUV charging in the garage*)

To the victor goes the spoils.



... This might be my most favorite post that I've ever gotten to write on here.

Well, you make it sound so easy. First off, the savings. Some people go directly to the military and say cut. Yes they could and should but every other department is just as bloated and inefficient. Exempt none but infrastructure. Military is one of the easier ones, 15%of their missions are humanitarian. Ax those and get rid of the graft. Then go on down the line with the other departments, all of them. I'll let you take care of the other departments, you make it sound easy. I work for the Department of Energy (sort of), they could go on a diet. This would also allow a paring down of the debt. The only reason we have enough electric power presently is that much of our industry has gone overseas. For instance we used to make 97% of our own steel, now we make around 6%. Power plants are expensive, complicated and a big investment. A nuke plant that was 40 years in the works just got their permit I read and costs went up astronomically. It takes years (16 months for me) to make a little truck, how about a 20 billion dollar plant? Nothing is easy.

 

[TheQuixotic1]

Well, you make it sound so easy. First off, the savings. Some people go directly to the military and say cut. Yes they could and should but every other department is just as bloated and inefficient. Exempt none but infrastructure. Military is one of the easier ones, 15%of their missions are humanitarian. Ax those and get rid of the graft. Then go on down the line with the other departments, all of them. I'll let you take care of the other departments, you make it sound easy. I work for the Department of Energy (sort of), they could go on a diet. This would also allow a paring down of the debt. The only reason we have enough electric power presently is that much of our industry has gone overseas. For instance we used to make 97% of our own steel, now we make around 6%. Power plants are expensive, complicated and a big investment. A nuke plant that was 40 years in the works just got their permit I read and costs went up astronomically. It takes years (16 months for me) to make a little truck, how about a 20 billion dollar plant? Nothing is easy.

I promise you that it was never my intention to make it sound easy. If it was easy, politicians wouldn't be able to pull the wool over people's eyes for as long as they have.

Every department isn't equally bloated compared to military spending, not by a long shot. Defense spending is going to be almost $800 billion this year. It is important to note that veteran's pensions & healthcare, as well as DHS (coast guard, secret service, ICE, TSA, et al) are not part of the $800 billion defense budget. Wages/salary and healthcare for every member of the military and those under the department of defense is approximately 20% of the total defense budget and is allocated under mandatory spending.

Next year's budget is just under $6 trillion. 70% of the yearly budget is mandatory spending (~63% spending, ~8% net interest); meaning it is spending that cannot be cut, even when members of congress decide to squawk to their respective media outlets each year around the time that spending bills need to be passed. So every time they want to yell and whoop and holler about spending on X or cuts to Y, they are only talking about 30% of the potential budget that is marked as discretionary spending.

Over half of all discretionary spending is defense spending, and no politician EVER wants to suggest "defunding the troops." So that 30% of discretionary spending shrinks even further to about 12%.

You (sort of) work for the DoE; I work for the DoT. I used to think something similar to you: that ALL these departments could/should go on a diet. I thought I saw a lot of people "coasting" and gross misuse of taxpayer money. At some point I had a personal realization: these departments are funded just enough to keep the lights on and serve as scapegoats for when anything falls through the cracks. Don't get me wrong, there are still scammers and skimmers throughout the governmental agencies. But I saw a different level that governmental work should be done on: scarcity vs abundance. Most federal departments/agencies/programs operate on budgets of scarcity: we have to make X program work with X amount of budget or less and sustain that ad infinitum. No growth, no evolution, just a slowly degrading status quo.

In my most humble of opinions, the biggest shift of the government and US citizenry's view of the government needs to be into the mindset of abundance for non-defense discretionary spending. I'm not talking about communism or socialism or capitalism or any kind of -ism. An abundance mindset in government gets you things like the Hoover Dam, national parks, the Apollo missions, the interstate highway system, and freeze dried ice cream. A scarcity mindset in government gets you things like the Flint water crisis and the Boeing 737 Max debacle. While I would like to see the defense budget trimmed down to a more reasonable level, I'm FAR more interested in seeing other departments get the funding they need to get things done. If that sounds like I am making it seem easy, it is only because I speak of what I want to see and not what is expected from people in power.

Sponsored